A somewhat different approach to ecclesial solidarity can be seen in the recent work by Paul Trebilco. His stated aim is to examine self-designations, and what they say about “the early ‘Christian’ movement, its identity, self-understanding, and character.”67 Trebilco highlights four key terms which are relevant for a study of ecclesial solidarity in the Pauline corpus: brothers, believers, saints, and the assembly. In addition, his analysis of “communities of practice,” picking up on work in the field of sociolinguistics, highlights self-designations as informing and being informed by group identity.68 However, Trebilco, like Horrell, does little with the interchurch implications of self-designations other than to describe Christians as part of a large family or worldwide assembly.69
There are then several potentially fruitful lines of enquiry for examining ecclesial solidarity in the Pauline corpus in these three works. In addition, there are a small number of other treatments of Pauline ecclesiology which do deal with the issue of interchurch relationships, and here I will summarize the findings of these scholars in order to highlight potential areas for further study.70 I will do so under three of the headings which have already been mentioned by Meeks: communication, provision (hospitality and support), and belief.
These three areas can be seen in the recent work by Dunn, who argues that Paul’s letters suggest that “he inculcated a sense of belonging to and responsibility in relation to a large network of churches, with the Jerusalem congregations as the mother church.”71 In support of this conclusion, he discusses communication: Paul knew lots of people in different churches, traveled extensively (as did other teachers), and hears reports of other churches. He also mentions provision (the collection for Jerusalem) and belief.72 He concludes that, whilst ἐκκλησία is used for individual churches, Paul did not think of them as “independent and autonomous from each other.”73
Kloha, Stenschke, and Thompson also argue that interchurch relationships are maintained through communication. Kloha includes Paul’s reports on one congregation to another, the exchange of greetings (some from multiple congregations), and the sending of individuals from one church to another here.74 Stenschke notes the importance of salutations and greetings,75 and Thompson argues that the survival of the body of Christ was dependent on a network of support, and that a hunger for news, the various early controversies that the letters indicate, and the movement of coworkers all demonstrate this communication happening.76
Communication overlaps with the second area, where interchurch solidarity can be observed in shared support and provision. Stenschke notes here the references Paul makes to funding he received,77 the Jerusalem collection,78 the provision of hospitality for strangers and visitors,79 and prayer.80 Kloha deals with Paul’s request for support from the church in Rome, as well as the collection for the church in Jerusalem as evidence of a shared mission.81
The third area where interchurch solidarity can be observed is in the area of belief. Kloha argues that the existence of shared beliefs and practices can be seen from the encouragement to read other letters82 and the appeal to the practice of “the church of God” in 1 Corinthians.83 Thompson highlights the importance of example and imitation.84
This examination of scholarly approaches to solidarity, as well as intrachurch and interchurch relationships, reveals a number of potentially fruitful lines of enquiry. I will examine ecclesial solidarity in the following ways, and for the following reasons.
First, foundational to an understanding of ecclesial solidarity is an understanding of the range of meaning of ἐκκλησία. This is the word that Paul uses from his earliest letters for the “church,” and therefore needs to be examined. This examination will begin in chapter 2, and then continue through the following chapters looking at the Pauline corpus.
Second, there are also a potentially large number of images used for the church, such as temple, body, bride, or building, and descriptions of the church, such as brothers, people of God, and holy people, which also need to be examined. Here, my focus in chapter 3 and following will be on those images and descriptions which are prominent in the letters, and which might contribute to a deeper understanding of ecclesial solidarity between churches.
Third, there are several different activities done by and between churches which foster group solidarity, such as the appeal to the word or Christian tradition, communication between churches, hospitality, and mutual support. At the same time, in the Pauline letters, Paul as apostle and as one to be imitated looms large. In examining these areas in chapter 3 and following, I will focus on the role of Paul, looking at all these areas, again with a particular focus on interchurch relationships. Two areas will not be explored in this book, due to limitations of space: the ecclesial implications of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and of various designations for “church leaders” in the Pauline corpus.
This approach to ecclesial solidarity should allow access to the neglected question of how interchurch relationships in the Pauline corpus are intended to function, examining what the implications of interchurch solidarity are.
Approaching the Pauline Corpus
In the section entitled “Interchurch Relationships: A Neglected Area,” I highlighted one of the questions raised by MacDonald’s analysis of development in the Pauline corpus: how should the Pauline corpus be approached when looking at ecclesial solidarity? The fact that not all of the thirteen letters that bear Paul’s name as author and/or cosender85 are universally considered to have been written by him cannot be ignored in an analysis of the Pauline corpus; however, it is not my intention in this thesis to offer any significant contribution to debates on authorship. Nor is this a study of development in the Pauline corpus. The challenge is to find a methodology which takes account of these issues.
First, one of the reasons for treating some letters as post-Pauline is because their content is considered to have developed beyond, or in some cases against, Paul’s ideas as expressed in the letters with undisputed authorship. For example, one of the reasons Lincoln argues that Ephesians is pseudonymous is because of the development in content in relation to Colossians, particularly ecclesiological developments,86 and a number of authors see the development from church as “assembly or gathering” to universal church as indication of a later setting, moving towards “early catholicism.”87 I am seeking to avoid a methodology which establishes “Paul’s” view before looking at the “later” letters. As I noted, some of the development cruxes in relation to ecclesiology are the areas which I am planning to investigate. So, the question of whether ἐκκλησία is used universally in the Pauline corpus,